Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1887-03-25

distinguished gentleman from tie c0uh-
" of Jefferson says that the practice OF
our party has not been uniform in the
election of Senator; that we have not
always made caucus nominations. and
that out of six United States Senators
whom we have elected only three have
been caucus nominees. This is partially
true but the proposition stated In this
form is unfairly stated. and amounts 10
a mere dodging of the issue. Ii is true
tina: three or four Senators were elected
i'm open session without first receiving
caucus nomination but that was not be-
cause we did not caucus as party, but
because on account of tie number OF
candidates the caucus was not able to
effect nomination. But, sir, no one
knows better than the gentleman from
jefferson himself that this Is the hrst
time in the history of the State when
any portion OF the Democratic party, or
any man or set of men claiming to be
Democrats, ever refused To acquiesce In
the choice of the party nominee. Some
thing has been said about the election
of Senators Davis aud Hereford in 1871.
| happened TO be member of the House
of Delegates at that time, and know
whereof | speak. We commenced to
caucus at that session about one week
before the time fixed by law for the first
ballot to be taken by the Legislature,
and continued to do so night after light
until that ballot was taken. ami then
we continued to ballot during the day
and caucus at night for about two weeks
until Il combination of Democrats ana
Republicans was made which resulted
in The election already named: and the
only reason why we did not make eau
Gus nominations was because II majority
of the caucus could not agree and not
because any Democrat declined to go
into caucus or refused to be bound by
its decision. Precisely the same thing
is true of the ele.tion Of Senator Caper-
ton. and while gentlemen who refuse TO
20 into or Re bound by party caucus
dpplOre the election Of wealthy men 10
the United States Senate, and give that
AS reason for such refusal, L call their
attention u the fact that the failure OF
our party to make a caucus nomination
i'm 1877 resulted i'm the election of Il gem
tleman who possessed more wealth than
has been possessed by all OF the other
Senators combined. At til" same time,
sir: | want to say that | voted Tor that
gentleman and that would do so again
if similarly situated. voted for him
not because he was man OF wealth, but
because he was Democrat and was fit
TO represent us in the Senate of the
United States, and | believe he could be
trusted TO do so; and sir, have never
had cause to regret that vote. The hon
h In. laf hns faL. al
time 10 canvass in detail the records of a
number of United States Senators from
other States in this Union. L know
nothing about elections in Nebraska ana
California and elsewhere. L am not
able 20 call the roll of the United Stales
Senate, as my friend seems TO be. This
may be, sir, because | have never aspir-
ed To Il seat in that body, but | want TO
say to the honorable gentleman that we
have business of more Importance en-
yaying our attention than the record Of
Senators from our sister States, and we
have no time and very few OF us any
inclination to cross arG re-cross the con-
tnput in order that we NAV assist The
people Of California in protecting them
selves aud their institutions against the
encrOachmentS of this great hObgobIin
of monopoly. But the distinguished
gentlemen from jefferson and other
gentlemen from that section of the
State say that the people they represent
are not in favor Of caucus nominations.
When sir. ask was such a conclusion
reached by them? Was il in 1870, when
for the first time in the history 0t the
State it elected a Democratic Governor,
and conferred that high honor on dis
tinguished citizen of the county of
Hampshire? Was it four Yeas later
when another distinguished citizen of
the same county was nominated ard
elected as Attorney General of the
State? Was it few years later when
the honorable gentleman from Jefferson
himself was nominated for Congress in
the Second district By Democratic
Convention? Or was il last fall when
he was nominated and elected, and when
YOU. Mr.. President. and others here,
were nominated and elected to the pres
ent Legislature by Democratic conven-
tiuns and Democratic votes? TO say,
sir, that these people are opposed TO Il
caucus and caucus nomination, is to
say that they are ready TO dash the
DelnOCId' IL paw w piSNOS, 'Hu w wi
this State and its institutions over to the
Republican party. That, sir, is Il SLAM
der upon the fair name and reputation
of the Democrats of that section of the
State which they do not deserve. and
the very presence Of these gentle
men here as caucus and convention
nominees proclaimS its utter falsity.
Aud now, i'm conclusion. permit me TO
say that there is but one course for
Democrats to pursue. We have a can
didate fairly, openly. and honestly
nominated. He is entirely fiji for the
position and worthy of our support.
We have no apology to offer for his
nomination. He ceased TO be the indi
vidual choice of any man and becomes
the candidate and choice Of the Demo
cratic party. We owe it to our party
and ourselves alike 10 stand by him. 1t
is possible. sir, that he may be defeated.
but bv remaining true 10 our candidate
we will at least be able to preserve the
organization and integrity of our party
and If 90 down re must we will 90
down together and with our colors tly
ing, and if a few men, sailing under the
flag of the Democratic party, shall, in
violation OF all the principles, customs
and usages Of that party. betray us into
the hands OF our political enemies, upon
them shall BE the stigma and RESPONSE
bility of the disaster, and not upon US.
Do not put yonr baby TO sleep with
laudanum when restless. if you want it
10 look bright, but use DR.. Bulls Baby